Evolution's Brick Wall

[pitabread]

So the atheists and presumed agnostics on this site can "preach" to others, but belivers in Christ Jesus cannot?

I didn't say you couldn't preach. I just said it's boring.

What and if I am getting "preachy"? That has nothing to do with the merits of my arguments.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue at this point.

 

[AACJ]

I didn't say you couldn't preach. I just said it's boring.



I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue at this point.

I have argued for, or alluded to, the presence and necessity of the element of faith found in many of the claims and conclusions found present in the materialistic worldview and that system known as Darwinian evolution.

But I will now preach Jesus, your Maker. Did you know that your intrinsic, inherent value, which Atheistic naturalism must exclude, is inestimable? Did you know dear soul, that the Lord of Glory died for you even though you do not know him? For when one dies for another, the value of the one died for is evident. Will you give Jesus Christ a chance?

Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

 

[Speedwell]

I have argued for the presence and necessity of the element of faith present in many of the claims and conclusions found present in the materialistic worldview and that system known as Darwinian evolution.

But I will now preach Jesus, your Maker. Did you know that your intrinsic, inherent value, which Atheistic naturalism must exclude, is inestimable? Did you know dear soul, that the Lord of Glory died for you even though you do not know him? For when one dies for another, the value of the one died for is evident. Will you give Jesus Christ a chance?

Rom 5:6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Amen. But the theory of evolution does not require or imply metaphysical materialism. If you want to argue against atheism, that's fine, but this isn't the forum for it.

 

[sfs]

Quite the equation you're presenting.

Quite the argument you didn't present.

 

[sfs]

Micro.

Is the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees microevolution in your book?

 

[sfs]

The art of applied philosophical assumptions. Committed macro-evolutionists: extraordinary bearers of faith.

Please tell me what philosophical assumption I bring to the study of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

102 pages. Wow.

Brick walls are hard to get around.

 

[pitabread]

But I will now preach Jesus

If this is all you really wanted to do, you could've saved us both the trouble of this having this conversation in the first place.

 

[AACJ]

Amen. But the theory of evolution does not require or imply metaphysical materialism.

The introduction and establishment of Darwinian evolution in society has been demonstrated to be effectively antagonistic to biblical Christianity. Whatever is antagonistic to biblical Christianity is effectively accommodating to, or at a minimum, conducive to metaphysical materialism.

If you want to argue against atheism, that's fine, but this isn't the forum for it.

Fair enough, I suppose.

 

[AACJ]

If this is all you really wanted to do, you could've saved us both the trouble of this having this conversation in the first place.

Have you been troubled? You are on a Cristian oriented website.

 

[AACJ]

Please tell me what philosophical assumption I bring to the study of evolution.

Broadly speaking, attempting to interpret past events based on presupposed "facts." A prime example is the numerous assumptions made by evolutionists concerning radiometric dating methods.

 

[Job 33:6]

Broadly speaking, attempting to interpret past events based on presupposed "facts." A prime example is the numerous assumptions made by evolutionists concerning radiometric dating methods.

Are you in denial of plate tectonics?

 

[AACJ]

Are you in denial of plate tectonics?

Making claims in the form of a question?

 

[sfs]

Broadly speaking, attempting to interpret past events based on presupposed "facts." A prime example is the numerous assumptions made by evolutionists concerning radiometric dating methods.

Broadly speaking, that's completely wrong. First, because I'm not presupposing any facts (with or without scare quotes), other than routine assumptions about the existence of an objective physical world. Second, the strongest evidence doesn't depend at all on any kind of dating -- it's from genetics. Third, there are no assumptions in radiometric dating that haven't been thoroughly tested.

So, try again: what philosophical assumptions am I making?

 

[Job 33:6]

Making claims in the form of a question?

The age of the earth and uniformitarian concepts are based on superposition and plate tectonics, hence the question.

 

[Speedwell]

The introduction and establishment of Darwinian evolution in society has been demonstrated to be effectively antagonistic to biblical Christianity. Whatever is antagonistic to biblical Christianity is effectively accommodating to, or at a minimum, conducive to metaphysical materialism.

You overreach yourself. The theory of evolution may be seen by some as "effectively hostile" to biblical Christianity (although indifferent would be more accurate) but it is not hostile to Traditional Christianity nor to theism generally.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Brick walls are hard to get around.

Not if there's no brick wall in sight, only in one person's imagination.

 

[46AND2]

Broadly speaking, attempting to interpret past events based on presupposed "facts." A prime example is the numerous assumptions made by evolutionists concerning radiometric dating methods.

Let me guess:

1. The decay rates have been constant....nope, we don't assume that
2. The initial daughter isotope concentration was zero...nope, we don't assume that
3. The atmospheric concentration of C14 has been constant...nope, we don't assume that
4. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotope has occurred...nope, we don't assume that

So, now that you know that we don't assume these things, how would that change your argument?

 

[DogmaHunter]

They predicted the period for fish-to-tetrapod transition, went there and indeed found a strange creature that they can plug in that model (so far, so good)...

No, there is no "plugging" going on.
And it wasn't really "strange" either, considering its features were literally predicted.

then oops, someone finds tetrapod tracks eight million years before that predicted transition period.

No, it's still the same period: mid devonian onwards.

What’s wrong with that picture?

Nothing.

And, excuse me, but who has their head in the sand here?

You.

 

[DogmaHunter]

mathematical certainty: 2 + 2 =4, correct? 100% correct.

Are you aware that using math, you can build models with 100% exact consistency of non-existing universes?